> On hardware with AES primitives this is simply false.

????

Do you even code these things?

I'm unaware of any CPU with AES hardware that lets you compute SIMD under AES, and AES instructions on every CPU I've used (quite a few) are again slower even for single data paths. Once you switch to PRNGs using SIMD that alone is an order of magnitude faster than any AES method. It's not hard to check (say via Agner Fog's CPU instruction tables if you want Intel/AMD) that no AES method is going to beat the fastest non-crypto RNGS. Or simply code and profile a few.

AES primitives are generally used for AES, and even for RNG, they are slow. No one is using crypto rand, even with AES, for all the uses I mentioned, which is orders of magnitude more rands than all the crypto in the world. Between physical simulation, video game uses, and no data centers and AI running PRNGs up the wazoo, all the crypto rand in the world is a tiny, tiny, fraction of the uses - and even there they're used a handful of times to set up a private key system with no more PRNGs needed (and this is why AES instructions were built into CPUs in the first place - for symmetric key encryption - no PRNGS there...)

And once you stop with the simple single rng call mentality, the world runs on GPUs and parallel HW where you get 1000 to ~20,000+ cores, all of which are doing non-crypto rand a lot for the uses above.

There's a reason places like CERN publish RNG algorithms suitable for their needs, which are often adopted in many industries that need actual high speed, high quality PRNGs, and none of them are crypto RNGs. Not one.

So go ahead and show me this fast AES PRNG that is as fast as the fastest non-crpyto RNGs. I'll wait......

I've worked in this space a long time, done DARPA HPC projects, written articles on PRNGs, designed specialized PRNGs, have a math PhD (my advisor did crypto, so I've done quite a bit of that), and have written numerical software for just about every application mentioned above. Read my posting history. I know what I'm taking about.

> Use the right tool for the job ....

Yes, indeed.

> ... and try to be less condescending.

Then don't make false claims, then double down with more. I'm not the only one calling you out on your claims in this thread; probably there's a reason.